(1) To evaluate dental arch relationships, with the Great Ormond Street, London and Oslo (GOSLON) Yardstick, of participants with Unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and treated with 1-stage palatal closure with 3 different surgical protocols (2) to compare the mean GOSLON ratings with other CLP centers.
Design:
Retrospective study of medical charts and dental models.
Setting:
Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Participants:
Eighty-seven patients with UCLP operated with 1-stage palatal repair. Thirty-five were operated with Veau-Wardill-Kilner (VWK) technique 1975 to 1986, 31 with minimal incision technique (MIT) from 1987 to 1997, and 21 according to MIT with muscle reconstruction (MITmr) 1998 to 2004.
Interventions:
Dental casts at ages 5 (n = 87), 7 to 8 (n = 27), 10 (n = 81), 16 (n = 61), and 19 (n = 35) years were rated by 10 assessors with the GOSLON Yardstick. Information of other interventions was retrieved from patients’ charts.
Main outcome measures:
Mean GOSLON ratings.
Results:
A total of 82% of the participants were rated as having excellent to satisfactory outcome. Weighted κ statistics for the 10 assessors was good for inter-rater agreement and good/very good for intra-rater agreement.
Conclusions:
The mean GOSLON score in the Stockholm overall material at age 10 was 2.67. The VWK technique resulted in a greater need of orthognathic surgery than the MIT (P < .01). The MITmr did not produce better dental arch relationships than MIT at age 5 (P < .05). The best dental arch relationships were found in the MIT group at 10 years, mean 2.58, which is not significantly different from other centers with excellent outcome except Gothenburg and Vienna.
AndradesPEspinosa-de-los-MonterosAShellDThurstoneTFowlerJXavierSRayPGrantJ. The importance of radical intravelar veloplasty during two-flap palatoplasty. Plastic Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(4):1121–1130.
2.
AtackNHathornIMarsMSandyJ. Study models of 5 year old children as predictors of surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Eur J Orthod. 1997a;19(2):165–170.
3.
AtackNEHathornISSembGDowellTSandyJR. A new index for assessing surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects aged five: reproducibility and validity. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1997b;34(3):242–246.
4.
BearnDMildinhallSMurphyTMurrayJJSellDShawWCWilliamsACSandyJR. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom—the Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) study. Part 4: outcome comparisons, training, and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(1):38–43.
5.
BisharaSEKrauseCJOlinWHWestonDNessJVFellingC. Facial and dental relationships of individuals with unoperated clefts of the lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate J. 1976;Oct(13):238–252.
6.
BongaartsCAvan’t HofMAPrahl-AndersenBDirksIVKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Infant orthopedics has no effect on maxillary arch dimensions in the deciduous dentition of children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (Dutchcleft). Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(6):665–672.
7.
BraithwaiteFMauriceDG. The importance of the levator palati muscle in cleft palate closure. Br.J. Plast.Surg. 1968;21(1):60–62.
8.
BrattströmVMcWilliamJLarsonOSembG. Craniofacial development in children with unilateral clefts of the lip, alveolus, and palate treated according to four different regimes. I. maxillary development. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;25(3):259–267.
9.
ChapmanKLHardin-JonesMAGoldsteinJAHalterKAHavlikRJSchulteJ. Timing of palatal surgery and speech outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(3):297–308.
10.
CosmanBFalkAS. Delayed hard palate repair and speech deficiencies: a cautionary report. Cleft Palate J. 1980;17(1):27–33.
11.
de VosAF. A primer in Bayesian Inference. In Introduction 1.1. VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands. Draft September 2000, revision22008;1–23.
12.
DoganSSembGErbayEAlcanTUzelAKocadereliIShawWC. Dental arch relationships in Turkish patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate born between 1976 and 1990: a comparison with eurocleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(1):70–75.
13.
EnemarkHBolundSJorgensenI. Evaluation of unilateral cleft lip and palate treatment: long term results. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27(4):354–361.
14.
EUROCRAN Index Group. The Eurocran index for grading dental arch relationship and palatal morphology in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. In OskoueiSM (Ed). Web-based learning package on the EUROCRAN Yardstick for rating surgical outcome in unilateral cleft lip & palate patients[Master of Science thesis] (pp. 27–28, 75–99). Manchester, England: University of Manchester; 2007.
15.
FriedeHJohansonB. A follow-up study of cleft children treated with primary bone grafting. 1. Orthodontic aspects. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1974;8(1-2):88–103.
16.
FriedeHJohansonB. A follow-up study of cleft children treated with vomer flap as part of a three-stage soft tissue surgical procedure. Facial morphology and dental occlusion. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;11(1):45–57.
17.
FudalejPHortis-DzierzbickaMDudkiewiczZSembG. Dental arch relationship in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate following Warsaw (one-stage repair) and Oslo protocols. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(6):648–653.
18.
GelmanARubinDB. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods in biostatistics. Stat Methods Med Res. 1996;5(4):339–355.
19.
HardwickeJChabraPRichardB. Absent maxillary lateral incisor as evidence of poor midfacial growth in unilateral cleft lip and palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2015;119(4):392–395.
20.
HathawayRRDaskalogiannakisJMercadoAMRussellKALongRECohenMSembGShawWC. The Americleft study: an intercenter study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Part 2. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):244–251.
21.
HathornIRoberts-HarryDMarsM. The GOSLON Yardstick applied to a consecutive series of patients with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(6):494–496.
22.
HeliovaaraA.One-stage closure of isolated cleft palate with the Veau-Wardill-Kilner V to Y pushback procedure or the Cronin modification. II. Height, weight and comparison of dental arches. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1994;28(1):55–62.
23.
HellquistRSvärdströmKPontenB. A longitudinal study of delayed periostoplasty to the cleft alveolus. Cleft Palate J. 1983;20(4):277–288.
24.
HotzMMGnoinskiWM. Effects of early maxillary orthopaedics in coordination with delayed surgery for cleft lip and palate. J Maxillofac Surg. 1979;7(3):201–210.
25.
HsiehYJLiaoYFShettyA. Predictors of poor dental arch relationship in young children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(4):1261–1266.
26.
HuddartAGBodenhamRS. The evaluation of arch form and occlusion in unilateral cleft palate subjects. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1972;9(3):194–209.
27.
JackHCAntounJSFowlertPV. Evaluation of primary surgical outcomes in New Zealand patients with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Aust Orthod J. 2011;27(1):23–27.
28.
KarstenALarsonMLarsonO. Dental occlusion after Veau-Wardill-Kilner versus minimal incision technique repair of isolated clefts of the hard and soft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40(5):504–510.
29.
KobergWKoblinJ. Speech development and maxillary growth in relationship to technique and timing of palatoplasty. J Maxillofac Surg. 1973;1(1):44–50.
30.
KrecziAProffPReichenederCFaltermeierA. Effects of hypodontia on craniofacial structures and mandibular growth pattern. Head Face Med. 2011;7:23.
31.
LacerdaRHOzawaTORamosTBFurtadoPGde OliveiraLAde OliveiraAF. Facial growth evaluation of complete unilateral cleft lip and palate operated patients: a cleft reference center in Paraiba, Brazil, using the “GOSLON” yardstick. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;18(4):403–407.
32.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
33.
LeonardAGKneafseyBMcKennaSJohnstonCDBurdenDJStevensonM. A retrospective comparison of craniofacial form in Northern Irish children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1998;35(5):402–407.
34.
LiljaJMarsMElanderAEnocsonLHagbergCWorrellEBatraPFriedeH. Analysis of dental arch relationships in Swedish unilateral cleft lip and palate subjects: 20-year longitudinal consecutive series treated with delayed hard palate closure. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):606–611.
35.
LohmanderAFriedeHLiljaJ. Long-term, longitudinal follow-up of individuals with UCLP after the Gothenburg primary early veloplasty and delayed hard palate closurepeech outcome. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(6):657–671.
36.
LohmanderAPerssonC. A longitudinal study of speech production in Swedish children with unilateral cleft lip and palate and two-stage palatal repair. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):32–41.
37.
LoveRWaltersMJSouthallPSingerSGillettDA. Dental arch relationship outcomes in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate, treated at princess Margaret hospital for children, Perth, western Australia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(4):456–462.
38.
MarsMAsher-McDadeCBrattströmVDahlEMcWilliamJMølstedKPlintDAPrahl-AndersenBSembGShawWC. A six-center international study of treatment outcome in patients with clefts of the lip and palate: part 3. Dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(5):405–408.
39.
MarsMBatraPWorrellE. Complete unilateral cleft lip and palate: validity of the five-year index and the GOSLON Yardstick in predicting long-term dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):557–562.
40.
MarsMJamesDRLamabadusuriyaSP. The Sri Lankan cleft lip and palate project: the unoperated cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1990;27(1):3–6.
41.
MarsMPlintDAHoustonWJBerglandOSembG. The GOSLON yardstick: a new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with unilateral clefts of the lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987; 24(4):314–322.
42.
McCombH. Treatment of the unilateral cleft lip nose. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1975;55(5):596–601.
43.
MendozaMMolinaFAzzoliniCYsunza RiveraA. Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty. A preliminary report. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1994;28(3):199–205.
44.
MishimaKSugaharaTMoriYSakudaM. Three-dimensional comparison between the palatal forms in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate with and without Hotz plate from cheiloplasty to palatoplasty. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(4):312–317.
45.
MølstedKBrattströmVPrahl-AndersenBShawWCSembG. The Eurocleft study: intercenter study of treatment outcome in patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Part 3: dental arch relationships. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):78–82.
46.
MorrisDORoberts-HarryDMarsM. Dental arch relationships in Yorkshire children with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37(5):453–462.
47.
NolletPJPMKatsarosCvan’t HofMASembGShawWCKuijpers-JagtmanAM. Treatment outcome after two-stage palatal closure in unilateral cleft lip and palate: a comparison with Eurocleft. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;(42):512–516.
48.
NoverrazAEKuijpers-JagtmanAMMarsMvant HofMA. Timing of hard palate closure and dental arch relationships in unilateral cleft lip and palate patients: a mixed-longitudinal study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;(30):391–396.
49.
NoverrazRLDisseMAOngkosuwitoEMKuijpers-JagtmanAMPrahlC. Transverse dental arch relationship at 9 and 12 years in children with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with infant orthopedics: a randomized clinical trial (DUTCHCLEFT). Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(9):2255–2265.
50.
NybergJWestbergLRNeoviusELarsonOHenningssonG. Speech results after one-stage palatoplasty with or without muscle reconstruction for isolated cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(1):92–103.
51.
O’BrienK. Is evidence based orthodontics a pipedream?J Orthod. 2001;28(4):313.
52.
PegelowMAlqadiNKarstenAL. The prevalence of various dental characteristics in the primary and mixed dentition in patients born with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip with or without cleft palate. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(5):561–570.
53.
PerssonCLohmanderAElanderA. Speech in children with an isolated cleft palate: a longitudinal perspective. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(3):295–309.
54.
PigottRWAlberyEHHathornISAtackNEWilliamsAHarlandKOrlandoAFalderSCoghlanB. A comparison of three methods of repairing the hard palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(4):383–391.
55.
PrahlCKuijpers-JagtmanAMvan’t HofMAPrahl-AndersenB. A randomised prospective clinical trial into the effect of infant orthopaedics on maxillary arch dimensions in unilateral cleft lip and palate (Dutchcleft). Eur J Oral Sci. 2001;109(5):297–305.
56.
PruzanskySAdussH. Arch form and the deciduous occlusion in complete unilateral clefts. Cleft Palate J. 1964;Oct(30):411–418.
57.
RandallP. A triangular flap operation for the primary repair of unilateral clefts of the lip. Plast Reconstr Surg Transplant Bull. 1959;23(4):331–347.
58.
RoaldKLWisthPJBoeOE. Changes in cranio-facial morphology of individuals with hypodontia between the ages of 9 and 16. Acta Odontol Scand. 1982;40(2):65–74.
59.
RohrichRJGosmanAA. An update on the timing of hard palate closure: a critical long-term analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(1):350–352.
60.
RossRB. Treatment variables affecting facial growth in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate J. 1987;24(1):5–77.
61.
RussellKLongREHathawayRJrDaskalogiannakisJMercadoACohenMSembGShawW. The Americleft study: an inter-center study of treatment outcomes for patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate part 5. General discussion and conclusions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(3):265–270.
62.
RussellLMLongREJrRombergE. The effect of cleft size in infants with unilateral cleft lip and palate on mixed dentition dental arch relationship. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(5):605–613.
63.
SarnasKVRuneB. The facial profile in advanced hypodontia: a mixed longitudinal study of 141 children. Eur J Orthod. 1983;5(2):133–143.
64.
SembG. A study of facial growth in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated by the oslo CLP Team. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(1):1–21.
65.
ShawWCSembGNelsonPBrattströmVMølstedKPrahl-AndersenBGundlachKKH. The Eurocleft Project 1996-2000: overview. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001;29(3):131–140.
66.
SinkoKCaacbayEEagschRTurhaniDBaumannAMarsM. The GOSLON Yardstick in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate: review of a Vienna sample. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):87–91.
67.
SommerladBC. A technique for cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(6):1542–1548.
68.
SouthallPWaltersMSingerS. The influence of orthodontic treatment on the GOSLON score of unilateral cleft lip and palate patients. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49(2):215–220.
69.
SusamiTOgiharaYMatsuzakiMSakiyamaMTakatoTShawWCSembG. Assessment of dental arch relationships in Japanese patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(1):96–102.
70.
SuzukiASasaguriMHiuraKYasunagaAMitsuyasuTKubotaYNinomiyaTTakenoshitaY. Can occlusal evaluation of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate help determine future maxillofacial morphology?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(6):696–706.
71.
TennisonCW. The repair of the unilateral cleft lip by the stencil method. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1952;9(2):115–120.
72.
TrierWCDreyerTM. Primary von langenbeck palatoplasty with levator reconstruction: Rationale and technique. Cleft Palate J. 1984;21(4):254–262.
73.
TullochJF. Bias and variability in clinical research. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1:94–96.
74.
WiggmanKLarsonMLarsonOSembGBrattströmV. The influence of the initial width of the cleft in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate related to final treatment outcome in the maxilla at 17 years of age. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(3):335–340.
75.
WitzelMASalyerKERossRB. Delayed hard palate closure: the philosophy revisited. Cleft Palate J. 1984;21(4):263–269.
